Empty Words and Euphemism

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Bluesma

 

I am not saying every word is a euphemism.

Oh I know... I did! I won't try to pass off responsibility for my own actions or words, don't worry!

An apple is not a euphemism because it always conjure an image on an apple. It is not disguising anything.

What color is the apple image you see there? Is it the same as mine? How big is it? Is it the same size??
What is the texture of it's flesh? How sweet is it? How acidic?

I doubt anything is beign disguised, just because we might have different experiencs summoned in mind to that word- we just have different experiences to pull from.
The discussion of ego is similar- in that we are pretty much talking about the same thing, in a general way. It is the details of it's nature that we do not agree upon. Whether the self is attached to material things and the regard of others, or whether it is attached to mental objects and self judgement instead; whether it is a pained whiny thing with an irrascible appetite, or a self satisfied belief in it's perfection and abuser of the body and others... etc.


Perhaps ego varies in it's properties and attributes, as do other things, like apples?

But yeah, I doubt anyone claimed thigns like an ego, or God, have been experienced concretely- they are not physical objects. Depression is not a physical object either, yet many people experience it, and it effects their lives and choices and actions.... it has in influence on physical objects then. So we have a reason to discuss it and consider it.


But what I didn't understand about your euphemism theory is that euphemisms are usually used to refer to subjects we consider unpleasant or offensive! With further thought, it dawned on me that you might find subjective, interior experiences unpleasant or offensive? Or what?

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by akushla99

 

If it makes you feel any better, I don't believe qualia exist either (the debate of whether qualia exist or not still rages on in the philosophy of mind). There is only one electromagnetic spectrum of light. There is only one color perceived differently.

If I were to describe a red apple, I'd only be describing the apple, and not any sort of separate quality. The apple is the only thing that exists; it's qualities don't.

Thanx for the concern...
...my contention really revolves around the 2 extremes...(forget the apple...my example was not apple, I can taste apple)...Red! Experience of...electromagnetic spectrum of light does not give me the 'experience' of red...and in my hypothetical world of red-blinders...your sanity is called into question...perception is not a democratic process...

A99

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I've never claimed to experience anything about these words save for their emptiness and their use as euphemisms. I can define these words as everyone else defines them. If you can paint a better picture, by all means, the brush is in your hands.

As I said in my second post, you will not be able to relate to these words unless you can directly relate to what they actually are pointing to. E.g., consciousness is awareness is the presumption of being. Consciousness as my most fundamental state is self-evident and so I don't have trouble understanding the word consciousness when someone uses it.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I am arguing that some words, the words that are constantly begging the question, what basically amounts to defining a term circularly using its own synonyms, are actually used to disguise the absence of what they claim is there. Because it cannot be described using concrete terms shows that it hasn't been experienced concretely.

So from this I am assuming that you are clearly saying that you have no sense of consciousness or being or awareness, and therefore, these words are empty pointers to you. I don't see how this is possible, but on the basis of your statement here, I will continue...

You do not relate to consciousness but rather assume you are simply the "human apparatus" (as you have worded it in the past). You admitted to having no proof of this, but you said this is basically self-evident to you, so you believe in this materialistic approach to life.

Materialism assumes that awareness or consciousness arises from the body-brain-mind complex and is not senior to the body-brain-mind. My direct experience differs from this materialistic presumption that we are simply the "human apparatus", but somehow this notion of simply being the body-mind (and not fundamentally consciousness) is basically self-evident to you.

People who understand that consciousness (not just the observer function of focusing attention on objects) transcends and is senior to the body-mind, can speak logically about these matters, whereas your frame of references does not allow this conversation because you will not notice this truth for whatever reason.

Only consciousness never changes, does not age - and this is obviously not true of the body-mind. Your body-mind has significantly changed in the last several years, but consciousness has not changed at all. Can you not recognize and feel that consciousness (or your most fundamental sense of being or awareness) has not aged for you? So which is more self-evidently one's self - unchanging consciousness or an ever-changing and slowly dying body-mind? Of course, this is what must be discovered by each of us, and is of utmost importance, it seems to me.

So these words will continue to be only empty pointers for you until you notice the truth of this through profound self-understanding. But for many they are not empty pointers and so real considerations can be developed based on these words pointing to actual reality. Unfortunately, your fixed beliefs in the new global "religion" of scientific-materialism will not let you and many others see this, so there is little use discussing this further with you, it seems to me - especially given how much we have already tried in the past on various threads you started.

reply to post by bb23108


Calling consciousness awareness is like calling Venus the morning star. Same idea; different words. Nonetheless you can provide no concrete explanation for the "things" you posit as senior to the body, "things" that do not age, "things" that are always there, "things" that are not things in the slightest. I ask you to show me these "things", but can only show me more empty words and euphemisms. I have to wonder what you're hiding under all these abstractions.

You are right about one thing—ideas do not age. But they do "pass away" and are forgotten if no one cares for them any longer.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Because it cannot be described using concrete terms shows that it hasn't been experienced concretely.

The question is not only whether we have experienced the terms concretely, but also whether the terms relate to reality. It is not possible for everyone to experience everything, but in every field there are experts who can impart their own knowledge, and the world of spirituality and mysticism is no exception.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
For instance, if we are blaming something called "the ego" for our evil natures, we are blaming a euphemism instead of the guilty party, which we are often too fearful to admit. Not once have we experienced something called an ego; we have only ever experienced ourselves.

The "guilty party" is indeed our ego, and recognizing this does not absolve us from responsibility for our actions.

If what you regard as the self identifies fully with the ego, then of course the two appear as one. The whole point of "self-realization" is to recognize the difference and realize that the self is not the ego, but something very different.

There are numerous disciplines and practices whereby you may make these discoveries for yourself. Until you have applied yourself in earnest to test these assertions, your assumptions about the experiences of others are little more than unfounded belief.

reply to post by akushla99


This text is written in red.

The text above appears to you in some way that I cannot imagine but whenever you see a shade that resembles it you will know that it is what everybody else calls red.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by akushla99

 

This text is written in red.

The text above appears to you in some way that I cannot imagine but whenever you see a shade that resembles it you will know that it is what everybody else calls red.

Everybody else is hallucinating...

That text is written in Grey?!

A99

reply to post by akushla99

Of course but, it will be a certain shade which you can differentiate from other shades. Showing you something that is "red" and telling you that it is "red" is the same thing children go through when learning colors. So whatever grey that you see is the grey shade for red. The grey shade for blue would be much darker and the one for yellow would be much lighter.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by akushla99

 

Of course but, it will be a certain shade which you can differentiate from other shades. Showing you something that is "red" and telling you that it is "red" is the same thing children go through when learning colors. So whatever grey that you see is the grey shade for red. The grey shade for blue would be much darker and the one for yellow would be much lighter.

What about grey?

A99

reply to post by Bluesma

With further thought, it dawned on me that you might find subjective, interior experiences unpleasant or offensive? Or what?

I was arguing that people who use these sorts of metaphyscial euphemisms are disguising the fact that nothing is there at all. Rather than consider that nothing is there, which is offensive to their tastes, they invent a cover story, a euphemism, to convince themselves and others that something is there.

What I also meant to show was that through the proper use of rhetoric, and the logos, ethos, and pathos of an air-tight argument, that anyone can be convinced of anything, even of the supposed existence of these euphemisms. The tools are there for anyone, but it seems no one is up to the task or simply unable to do so. Thousand of years of God and we have yet to define what it is? 600 years of consciousness and we have yet to define it? Thousands of years of soul but not a single one can be explained? Why is this? Maybe this is because no such entities exist?

I would say the use of euphemism is a linguistic convenience that solves a minor problem but creates a much larger one.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Calling consciousness awareness is like calling Venus the morning star. Same idea; different words. Nonetheless you can provide no concrete explanation for the "things" you posit as senior to the body, "things" that do not age, "things" that are always there, "things" that are not things in the slightest. I ask you to show me these "things", but can only show me more empty words and euphemisms. I have to wonder what you're hiding under all these abstractions.

You can assume that you are the body-mind based on this being self-evident to you, but you cannot admit that you have any sense of being or awareness? Why does everything have to be a "thing" like an object is? Oh yeah, that is what the materialistic belief system calls for!

Consciousness is who you are - you cannot objectify it - so it will never be a "thing" you can look at. It is self-evidently the case - but you need to discover this. No one's words or your mentalizing about it will ever reveal the simplicity of this inherent truth to you.

reply to post by akushla99

If I were colorblind then I would know that answer but since I'm not I really can't say. I can assume that things on a grey scale would be different to colorblind people or that they would learn to associate other aspects of things like shape, smell and texture to identify them.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by akushla99

 

If I were colorblind then I would know that answer but since I'm not I really can't say. I can assume that things on a grey scale would be different to colorblind people or that they would learn to associate other aspects of things like shape, smell and texture to identify them.

edit on 29-4-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Depending on the saturation of grey, and the saturation of red...if the saturations produce the same grey...item is invisible?!...and therefore is nothing (a la OP)?

Do you mean like euphemisms?

A99

reply to post by mysticnoon

The whole point of "self-realization" is to recognize the difference and realize that the self is not the ego, but something very different.

Well...that's what you claim self-realization is. To me it's a little different.

How can one see the difference between things that aren't there? This is what bothers me. Show me the ego and the self, and then show me the differences, and then we might be able to agree. But before you decry such entities and call them the root of all evil, you bloody well be able to show they first exist to do so.

Every statement ends up begging the question as I've mentioned before. Well what is the self? What is the ego? What is the difference between the two? What is self-realization? I would have to ask questions infinitely in the hopes to find any common ground, but all I find is more and more abstractions. You know these things. You should be able to describe them.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
I was arguing that people who use these sorts of metaphyscial euphemisms are disguising the fact that nothing is there at all. Rather than consider that nothing is there, which is offensive to their tastes, they invent a cover story, a euphemism, to convince themselves and others that something is there.

I wonder if you are under the impression that these inner subjective experiences are a kind of nothingnness?

If you read some of the Sufi mystics, for example, a very different picture is painted of the internal experiences.

A snipped of one of Kabir's poems:

There the sky is filled with music:
There it rains nectar:
There the harp-strings jingle, and there the drums beat.
What a secret splendour is there, in the mansion of the sky!
There no mention is made of the rising and the setting of the sun;
In the ocean of manifestation, which is the light of love, day and night are felt to be one.
Joy for ever, no sorrow,--no struggle!
There have I seen joy filled to the brim, perfection of joy;
No place for error is there.
Kabir says: "There have I witnessed the sport of One Bliss!"

www.poetry-chaikhana.com...

reply to post by bb23108

Consciousness is who you are - you cannot objectify it - so it will never be a "thing" you can look at. It is self-evidently the case - but you need to discover this. No one's words or your mentalizing about it will ever reveal the simplicity of this inherent truth to you.

Obviously it is not self-evidently the case. You cannot produce what you are talking about. If I were to behold who you are with my own eyes, what would I see? Consciousness? Ego? Awareness? None of the above.

You've been sold an idea friend. That's all there is to it. You remain without your consciousness. Empty-handed, but nonetheless, no different than what you are.

reply to post by akushla99


It wouldn't be nothing because it would be something you are experiencing. If you are walking in the woods at night and you walk into a tree does it stop being a tree just because you couldn't see it?

So yes I'm sure there is a shade of grey that matches what a color blind person sees as red. In that situation a colorblind person would come to the conculsion that it is that shade of grey or red but that is something that he understands, given his situation so, he is not going to argue with a color seeing person if that person tells him that it is red.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
How can one see the difference between things that aren't there? This is what bothers me. Show me the ego and the self, and then show me the differences, and then we might be able to agree.

I am not a teacher nor an expert in this field, so I cannot instruct you on how to discover it for yourself.

In spirituality, one's own body is the laboratory, so it is there you need to make the experiments. You will not find the answer on a message board.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
But before you decry such entities and call them the root of all evil, you bloody well be able to show they first exist to do so.

I do not consider the ego as "evil', but only as an adversary when it hinders the natural impulses of my real self.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
Show me the ego and the self, and then show me the differences, and then we might be able to agree.

The ego is not an entity - it is the moment to moment process of separating from all arising, from trying to objectify everything in order to feel some sense of separate subjective existence.

Once one understands that this is one' very activity, it can be understood as self-imposed separation, pain, and contraction upon a point in the body-mind. Thus the ego is simply process and fundamentally an illusory gesture made moment to moment.

When there is no more egoic contracting from life due to clearly seeing we do this to ourselves in each and every moment for a sense of identity, then unity or non-separation is recognized and felt as the whole body-mind with all arising, and non-separate consciousness is self-evident.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by akushla99

 

It wouldn't be nothing because it would be something you are experiencing. If you are walking in the woods at night and you walk into a tree does it stop being a tree just because you couldn't see it?

So yes I'm sure their is a shade of grey that matches what a color blind person sees as red. In that situation a colorblind person would come to the conculsion that it is that shade of grey or red but that is something that he understands, given his situation so, he is not going to argue with a color seeing person if that person tells him that it is red.

edit on 29-4-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

Bear with me...

Experiencing, you say?!...
(Apologies to a person or persons afflicted in the way I describe)

My nervous system does not process the sensation of touch...
I am blind...
I am deaf...
My sense of smell does not exist...
Tastes buds taste nothing...

Hit a tree, you say?...a red tree?...

I'd have a few questions, I can tell you...

A99